A socialist hell on earth

[NYcarbineer]

This thread is a great example of why conservatism is dead.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why? Why would the third of Americans who are self-identified Democrats want an economic collapse?

Because it's better than economic inequality?

How many of Democratic acquaintances want to see the country collapse?

 

[Uncensored2008]

we aren't Venezuela.

you want to give back yoru ssd?

But you, are dumb as a doorknob.


{Chavez wants to build a humanistic democratic society based on solidarity and respect for political, economic, social and cultural human and civil rights, but not the top-down bureaucratic kind that doomed the Soviet Union and Eastern European states. He said he wants to build a "new socialism of the 21st century....based in solidarity, fraternity, love, justice, liberty and equality" as opposed to the neoliberal new world order model based on predatory capitalism exploiting ordinary people for power and profit that's incompatible with democracy. Newly appointed Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte expressed Washington's concern about the challenge to its hegemony in his Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing saying Chavez's "behavior is threatening to democracies in the region (because he exports a form of) radical populism." He didn't mention how glorious it is.}

SteveLendmanBlog: Hugo Chavez's Social Democratic Agenda

Chavez was the epitome of a democratic - socialist.

 

[Meathead]

Why? Why would the third of Americans who are self-identified Democrats want an economic collapse?

Because it's better than economic inequality?

How many of Democratic acquaintances want to see the country collapse?

I don't know anyone who wants to see an economic collapse. Shit happens, and it keeps happening with socialists. How many examples do you need?

 

[Dragonlady]

Bernies plans are nothing like the type of Socialism instituted in Venezuela.

Socialism is socialism. His brand of socialism is the hammer cocked on a gun ready to fire.

This is pure bullshit. The US is already a socialist country. Canada, Great Britain, every country in the European Union, and several South American countries as well. American conservatives constantly compare any form of socialism to communism, totalitarianism, and other extreme types of government.

It has been said that radical free markets cause mass rioting and can only be propped up by extreme suppression and violence (see Chile in the early 1970's, or Marcos in the Phillipines), or any other country when Milton Friedman's economic policies have been introduced, including Argentina.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Just a reminder of what the left has claimed in the recent past;

Hugo Chavez’s economic miracle

 

[SmokeALib]

This thread is a great example of why conservatism is dead.

In your marxist dreams.

 

[SmokeALib]

Why? Why would the third of Americans who are self-identified Democrats want an economic collapse?

Because it's better than economic inequality?

How many of Democratic acquaintances want to see the country collapse?

All of 'em, apparently.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why?

Greed. You think you'll get something for nothing. All of leftism is driven by greed and envy.

Why would the third of Americans who are self-identified Democrats want an economic collapse?

Bernie tells you there will be no collapse, that you can loot the "rich" with no negative impact. Because of your greed, you go along in hopes of gaining booty, regardless of the consequence.

 

[Oldstyle]

I did.

45% + 19% = 64%.

Germany's personal income tax rates are progressive. Do you know how progressive income tax rates work? Even if you're in the top margin, you're paying lower rates in the lower margins. You're not paying a flat 45%. Just like here.
.

moron

Wow. Lots of personal insults and name-calling (I'm used to that here from both silly ends), but you still won't address my point.

What are conservatives doing, precisely, to offer a clear and inspirational alternative?

Name-calling, maybe?
.

There seems to be a misconception among those on the Left that government has to DO something in order for it to be successful! The problem is that notion is based on the premise that free markets are incapable of accomplishing prosperity and need government supervision in order to work. A cursory study of what happens when government attempts to "manage" free markets should dissuade that notion but it seems like progressives don't feel the need to learn from past mistakes.

The phrase "free markets" is a misnomer, there is no such thing.

The key is finding an equilibrium between the dynamics of a market economy and proper regulations and safeguards. Do regulations and safeguards subtract somewhat from the dynamic nature of a pure "free" market? Of course, but the degree to which they do is up to that society.

I would agree that another misconception is that many seem to confuse "more" regulation with "better" regulation, and that's perhaps the place where government is most likely to make mistakes.
.

There is no such thing because so many well meaning folks have decided that government management of markets is needed when in fact that is seldom the case. The truth is...many regulations are put into place to address a problem...only to cause some other problem...which in turn leads to even more regulation. At some point the original problem has been forgotten because so many new problems have been created in the attempt to fix that original problem that nobody remembers what the original problem WAS!

And I would put forth the observation that it isn't "society" that often determines the degree of regulation...but the regulatory body itself. Government as an organism seldom remains static. By it's very nature it wants to grow and seek more power to sustain itself.

 

[Mac1958]

There's a difference between: Is Bernie advocating turning us into Cuba now And When would Bernie stop moving left so that we don't become Cuba. The first may be true, but the answer to the second is never. That's generally what Democrats do.

Okay, I think that's a perfectly valid point, and I share the concern that they would go too far, the slippery slope argument. We often tend to knee-jerk and overshoot.

So whether you want to either reverse this course or at least mitigate it, you'll need to offer a clear, strong alternative argument. But I definitely don't think the word "socialism" is going to scare anyone any more.
.

Euphemisms aren't going to win the day either though. Democrats are socialists. Social security and medicare are socialism. Describing things correctly isn't necessarily about winning an election

I have no doubt that the Democrats would love nothing more than to have you call such popular programs socialism, and argue against them.

That's what I've been saying. People will hear Social Security and Medicare called "socialism", and they'll say "well, I guess I like socialism".

Is that what you want? Or do you really think you're going to talk people out of their Social Security and Medicare?
.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There are plenty of sticks to beat Sanders with, so why come up with a comparison that doesn't stand up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny?

Let me educate the huddled masses here.

For the record, the party that Maduro and his VP belong to is the PSUV, (Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela). One of the ideologies it is founded upon is Democratic Socialism.

See here, on its Wikipedia page:

Socialism of the 21st century
Left-wing nationalism
Neo-Marxism
Bolivarianism
Chavismo
Democratic socialism <----------

So, it does stand up to scrutiny, and like I said earlier, it is nothing but the hammer cocked on a gun ready to fire. Democratic socialism, huh? If it were, why would a tyrant and his party espouse to it?

 

[Agit8r]

Bernies plans are nothing like the type of Socialism instituted in Venezuela.

Socialism is socialism. His brand of socialism is the hammer cocked on a gun ready to fire.

Name a social democracy that has devolved into dictatorship?

The Weimer Republic.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

The exception that proves the rule.

 

[hazlnut]

Bernies plans are nothing like the type of Socialism instituted in Venezuela.

Socialism is socialism. His brand of socialism is the hammer cocked on a gun ready to fire.

The Nazi's called themselves socialists… Nevermind the dictator part, and the taking away homes and property and…

Well, I guess when you're a pinhead, there's only one kind of cola.

 

[hazlnut]

There are plenty of sticks to beat Sanders with, so why come up with a comparison that doesn't stand up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny?

Let me educate the huddled masses here.

For the record, the party that Maduro and his VP belong to is the PSUV, (Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela). One of the ideologies it is founded upon is Democratic Socialism.

See here, on its Wikipedia page:

Socialism of the 21st century
Left-wing nationalism
Neo-Marxism
Bolivarianism
Chavismo
Democratic socialism <----------

So, it does stand up to scrutiny, and like I said earlier, it is nothing but the hammer cocked on a gun ready to fire. Democratic socialism, huh? If it were, why would a tyrant and his party espouse to it?

Yeah, maybe you should click on the link and learn something.

you wouldn't come off looking like such a friggin' idiot.

 

[Slade3200]

22 pages of debate about a damn label... It makes no difference what somebody calls themselves because they are all full of shit now a days... Socialist, D Socialist, Republican, Conservative, Liberal, Full, Of, Shit, All, Of Them! How about we debate the specific policies/principles/proposals you object to, it would... Then we may have a chance of having an intelligent discussion.

 

[kaz]

There's a difference between: Is Bernie advocating turning us into Cuba now And When would Bernie stop moving left so that we don't become Cuba. The first may be true, but the answer to the second is never. That's generally what Democrats do.

Okay, I think that's a perfectly valid point, and I share the concern that they would go too far, the slippery slope argument. We often tend to knee-jerk and overshoot.

So whether you want to either reverse this course or at least mitigate it, you'll need to offer a clear, strong alternative argument. But I definitely don't think the word "socialism" is going to scare anyone any more.
.

Euphemisms aren't going to win the day either though. Democrats are socialists. Social security and medicare are socialism. Describing things correctly isn't necessarily about winning an election

I have no doubt that the Democrats would love nothing more than to have you call such popular programs socialism, and argue against them.

That's what I've been saying. People will hear Social Security and Medicare called "socialism", and they'll say "well, I guess I like socialism".

Is that what you want? Or do you really think you're going to talk people out of their Social Security and Medicare?
.

So I couldn't call socialism socialism and I shouldn't oppose dependency programs like social security and medicare because people don't want to hear it? Why? That's ridiculous. I'll speak up for what I believe. Think about a country that follows your standards, everyone goes along with what is popular and doesn't speak up. Yeah, that's a good outcome.

If what I cared about was having popular views, I wouldn't be a libertarian, I'd be a Republican. Then again they're losing too because even the tiniest bit of personal responsibility isn't popular, so let's all just be Democrats. Otherwise we have to advocate things that no one wants to hear, which isn't popular. Shouldn't be done

 

[Slade3200]

There's a difference between: Is Bernie advocating turning us into Cuba now And When would Bernie stop moving left so that we don't become Cuba. The first may be true, but the answer to the second is never. That's generally what Democrats do.

Okay, I think that's a perfectly valid point, and I share the concern that they would go too far, the slippery slope argument. We often tend to knee-jerk and overshoot.

So whether you want to either reverse this course or at least mitigate it, you'll need to offer a clear, strong alternative argument. But I definitely don't think the word "socialism" is going to scare anyone any more.
.

Euphemisms aren't going to win the day either though. Democrats are socialists. Social security and medicare are socialism. Describing things correctly isn't necessarily about winning an election

I have no doubt that the Democrats would love nothing more than to have you call such popular programs socialism, and argue against them.

That's what I've been saying. People will hear Social Security and Medicare called "socialism", and they'll say "well, I guess I like socialism".

Is that what you want? Or do you really think you're going to talk people out of their Social Security and Medicare?
.

So I couldn't call socialism socialism and I shouldn't oppose dependency programs like social security and medicare because people don't want to hear it? Why? That's ridiculous. I'll speak up for what I believe. Think about a country that follows your standards, everyone goes along with what is popular and doesn't speak up. Yeah, that's a good outcome.

If what I cared about was having popular views, I wouldn't be a libertarian, I'd be a Republican. Then again they're losing too because even the tiniest bit of personal responsibility isn't popular, so let's all just be Democrats. Otherwise we have to advocate things that no one wants to hear, which isn't popular. Shouldn't be done

How about we stop painting ourselves with labels and playing partisan politics. Can't we just discuss each issue at face value as stop freaking out about the imaginary slippery slope?

 

[kaz]

There's a difference between: Is Bernie advocating turning us into Cuba now And When would Bernie stop moving left so that we don't become Cuba. The first may be true, but the answer to the second is never. That's generally what Democrats do.

Okay, I think that's a perfectly valid point, and I share the concern that they would go too far, the slippery slope argument. We often tend to knee-jerk and overshoot.

So whether you want to either reverse this course or at least mitigate it, you'll need to offer a clear, strong alternative argument. But I definitely don't think the word "socialism" is going to scare anyone any more.
.

Euphemisms aren't going to win the day either though. Democrats are socialists. Social security and medicare are socialism. Describing things correctly isn't necessarily about winning an election

I have no doubt that the Democrats would love nothing more than to have you call such popular programs socialism, and argue against them.

That's what I've been saying. People will hear Social Security and Medicare called "socialism", and they'll say "well, I guess I like socialism".

Is that what you want? Or do you really think you're going to talk people out of their Social Security and Medicare?
.

So I couldn't call socialism socialism and I shouldn't oppose dependency programs like social security and medicare because people don't want to hear it? Why? That's ridiculous. I'll speak up for what I believe. Think about a country that follows your standards, everyone goes along with what is popular and doesn't speak up. Yeah, that's a good outcome.

If what I cared about was having popular views, I wouldn't be a libertarian, I'd be a Republican. Then again they're losing too because even the tiniest bit of personal responsibility isn't popular, so let's all just be Democrats. Otherwise we have to advocate things that no one wants to hear, which isn't popular. Shouldn't be done

How about we stop painting ourselves with labels and playing partisan politics. Can't we just discuss each issue at face value as stop freaking out about the imaginary slippery slope?

"socialism" isn't a label, it's an ideology.

and I don't belong to a party and said I didn't, and you called me "partisan?"

Maybe instead of throwing a rod about "labels" you should buy a dictionary and learn what the words mean

 

[Slade3200]

Okay, I think that's a perfectly valid point, and I share the concern that they would go too far, the slippery slope argument. We often tend to knee-jerk and overshoot.

So whether you want to either reverse this course or at least mitigate it, you'll need to offer a clear, strong alternative argument. But I definitely don't think the word "socialism" is going to scare anyone any more.
.

Euphemisms aren't going to win the day either though. Democrats are socialists. Social security and medicare are socialism. Describing things correctly isn't necessarily about winning an election

I have no doubt that the Democrats would love nothing more than to have you call such popular programs socialism, and argue against them.

That's what I've been saying. People will hear Social Security and Medicare called "socialism", and they'll say "well, I guess I like socialism".

Is that what you want? Or do you really think you're going to talk people out of their Social Security and Medicare?
.

So I couldn't call socialism socialism and I shouldn't oppose dependency programs like social security and medicare because people don't want to hear it? Why? That's ridiculous. I'll speak up for what I believe. Think about a country that follows your standards, everyone goes along with what is popular and doesn't speak up. Yeah, that's a good outcome.

If what I cared about was having popular views, I wouldn't be a libertarian, I'd be a Republican. Then again they're losing too because even the tiniest bit of personal responsibility isn't popular, so let's all just be Democrats. Otherwise we have to advocate things that no one wants to hear, which isn't popular. Shouldn't be done

How about we stop painting ourselves with labels and playing partisan politics. Can't we just discuss each issue at face value as stop freaking out about the imaginary slippery slope?

"socialism" isn't a label, it's an ideology.

and I don't belong to a party and said I didn't, and you called me "partisan?"

Maybe instead of throwing a rod about "labels" you should buy a dictionary and learn what the words mean

Slow your reading and work on comprehension... I didn't call you a partisan. I renounced partisan politics. And although Socialism is an ideology it is being used label politicians and generalize their policies views in a very inaccurate way, hence the OP's ridiculous comparison of Venezuela and Uncle Bernie